It was interesting reading the recent TES interview with Lord Sainsbury about qualifications, awarding bodies and apprenticeships. It made me realise that I was thinking exactly the same thing about supermarkets: the extensive range of products they stock is totally confusing and should be reduced to a very simple basic range of products. And I think there is also one very bad idea, which is to have competing product ranges between different supermarkets. Besides the obvious problem of a race to the bottom, you just get a multiplication of products. Then, I came to my senses and I realised that this is just nonsense!
Shoppers may be confused if asked to consider the logistics of the supermarket industry or the complete range of the products on offer across the whole sector, but when they go into a supermarket for a tin of beans they are looking for specific product and choose from a much narrower range which they know and understand. While employers may consider the whole technical and professional qualifications system confusing (and interestingly, there is no research that supports this assertion), they generally have a good understanding of the much smaller range of qualifications in their sector which reflect their specific needs and the skills needs of their workforce and sector.
It is also hard to understand why competition in the awarding sector is seen as leading to a “race to the bottom” while in the supermarket sector, as all others, it’s seen as a positive force that drives up standards and promotes consumer choice and innovation. Again, the reality is that this is also nonsense. Awarding bodies succeed by supplying high quality qualifications that reflect the needs of employers and provide the transferable skills that learners want. Any awarding body that tried to trade on a low quality offer would very quickly go out of business.
‘No real knowledge of the sector’
The reasoning behind the selection of the 15 routes also sounds confused. I have worked with a large number of employers over many years and most over-estimate the amount skills and knowledge that are specific to their organisation. When you work with them to do the mapping, you generally find that about 90 per cent of their needs are generic. To use the retail example, are the underlying skills and knowledge required by Tesco really all that different to Sainsbury? If they are not, then there is a very good reason to provide qualifications that support the employees ability to progress in their retail career and provides them with the opportunity to transfer to another job in retail or something similar. Indeed, many employers actively seek to provide qualifications because they understand that they benchmark best industry practice and provide immense value to learners as a quality assured mechanism for recognising their achievements.
I also detect a hint of elitism behind the Sainsbury review, with an attitude that qualifications aren’t for the likes of shop workers, and who would bother with a level 2 qualification? Surely, unless you are doing a degree, it is pointless? Well, for many people a level 2 qualification (or indeed, an entry or level 1 qualification) is the first vital step on the ladder to re-engaging with learning and developing a better career and future for them and the economy as a whole.
The awarding sector has managed heroically for many years to continue to provide high quality qualifications that transform lives and increase the effectiveness of the economy. What has held the sector back is the perpetual churn of ill thought through reforms driven by people who have no real knowledge of the sector and mistake prejudice for insight.
Stephen Wright is chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies
Want to keep up with the latest education news and opinion? Follow TES FE News on Twitter, like us on Facebook and follow us on LinkedIn
